Resisting Climate Hysteria

Julia · 14 October 2010

Knobby22 said:
You have refused to look into the issues and develop an understanding yet you critiscise people who have. I ask you again to look into the science.

No, I'm not criticising the people. I am simply questioning some of the categorical statements that are being flung about, yours included.

The rest of the world is acting, we are lagging

I believe it is now our responsibility to take the lead on this issue.

The two above statements are directly contradictory.
Considering you have stated I'm uninformed, your own credibility is somewhat questionable.

You are uninformed.

Pity we have to become so adversarial rather than agreeing there are many question marks on claims made by both sides. I have previously said that I'm agnostic about it all.

Yes, you are no doubt correct and I do lack the training to discern what is fact. I'm hardly alone in this, given many scientists in related fields are objective enough to come to the same conclusion.

There's one thing I'm sure of, however, and that's the danger of fanaticism and zealotry.

noco · 14 October 2010

Professor Hal lewis who is 87 years of age was quite prepared to blow the whistle with nothing to lose, whereas younger scientist fear for their careers if they dare speak out about this SCAM ON GLOBAL WARMING (aka climate change). This is the greatest fraud of all times.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...cks-climate-scam/story-fn59niix-1225938436693

noco · 14 October 2010

Anyone noticed how quiet the Greens are since the arrival of La Nina.

The drought has broken with record rainfall thoughout Queensland, NSW, Victoria and South Australia.

It's a wonder they have not blamed CO2 emmissions for the record rain fall.

Julia · 14 October 2010

noco said:
Anyone noticed how quiet the Greens are since the arrival of La Nina.

The drought has broken with record rainfall thoughout Queensland, NSW, Victoria and South Australia.

It's a wonder they have not blamed CO2 emmissions for the record rain fall.

Hey, don't rush them, noco. They're probably waiting until the floods become devastating, then they'll be right in there. Never mind that there have been extreme floods in the past.

OzWaveGuy · 15 October 2010

OzWaveGuy said:
G, feel free to post your comments on the Joanne's site - David will repsond via email or to your post directly. The question still stands unanswered by the alarmists in this thread: Is the climate establishment corrupt?

Leading from this question: I would be more interested to understand if the SkepticalScience site has based their answer "playbook" on the historical temperature analysis from the IPCC's AR1 and AR2 reports where there is a medeivel warming period with higher temps than today or from the IPCC's AR3 report that rewites the 1000 year temp record without the medeivel period and instead introduces the famous hockey stick that shows convienent "unprecendented warming" in the mid-twentith century.

If you believe that there is no corruption in AGW "concensus" science, then you agree with the IPCC's changing temperature record and the famous hockey stick lie.

Dr David Evans has posted Part 6 of the "Is the Western Establishment Corrupt" Series on Joanne's site.

This review goes into more detail on what I posted above and here on the hockey stick lie that the establishment peddled to the public and has still failed to publicly retract.

In addition, the alarmists on this thread seem to have gone incredibly quiet on the issue of the IPCC changing temperature history between the AR reports - a clear case of corruption within the climate establishment that was needed to support climate "policy"....

"And to make the current warming unprecedented, they needed the current temperature to be greater than anything in the last thousand years. In a rare insight or slip, one of the leading establishment climate scientists sent University of Oklahoma geoscientist David Deming an email in 1995 that said “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”, according to a statement by Deming to a US Senate Committee."

OzWaveGuy · 16 October 2010

Top international experts prove British numbers on carbon dioxide are wrong. Royal Society blunder grossly exaggerates climate impact.

Royal Society...

"Current understanding indicates that even if there was a complete cessation of emissions of CO2 today from human activity, it would take several millennia for CO2 concentrations to return to preindustrial concentrations”

I've heard this type of climate science-fiction before: CO2 just keeps "building up" in the environment - almost like water filling a bathtub until it overflows and starts to cause damage.

CO2 used to hang around for "several millennia" until the Royal Society, just like the IPCC, re-writes their "Climate change: A Summary of the Science" guide. As reported here:

“Current understanding indicates that even if there was a complete cessation of emissions of CO2 today from human activity, it would take several millennia for CO2 concentrations to return to preindustrial concentrations”.

Dr Kaiser’s article poses some very embarrassing questions about the competence of authors of the Royal Society document. The German chemist expertly dismantles the claims by the Royal Society that it would take “millennia” for atmospheric CO2 to return to preindustrial levels. Such a claim, he says, “cannot be true.”

Swedish Mathematics Professor cites “Elementary” Mistakes

Backing up Kaiser's analysis is none other than Sweden’s eminent mathematics Professor Claes Johnson, who was quick to respond to the German’s findings when posting on his blog, ‘Claes Johnson on Mathematics and Science.’

The Royal Society's new guide is discussed here with some fun analysis of the RS claims.

The new guide makes full use of non-commital langauge like "possible", "potential changes", "uncertainties" and of course a "get out of jail free" card:

"There remains the possibility that hitherto unknown aspects of the climate and climate change could emerge and lead to significant modifications in our understanding"

But we just need to act...

"policy choices about climate change have to be made in the absence of perfect knowledge"

But we really are confident because:

"One indication of these advances is the increasing degree of confidence in the attribution of climate change to human activity, as expressed in the key conclusions of IPCC Working Group 1 (WG1) in its assessments."

In summary:
Still no mention from these experts that the medieval warming period was warmer than it was today, but that's ok, it was re-written by the IPCC, and we are now more confident that the science is also more confident now that we've fixed our gross mathematical errors so that we can under 'no pressure': act now, but we may need to significantly change our understanding of climate in the future should we decide to.

OzWaveGuy · 17 October 2010

This is just laughable...Michael Mann - the hockey stick guru.

Remember that Dr. Mann recently said:

My employer, Penn State University, exonerated me after a thorough investigation of my e-mails in the East Anglia archive.

WUWT picks ups on the so called investigation of climate gate:

To my astonishment, other than Michael Mann, the people running the investigation of Michael Mann reported interviewing exactly TWO PEOPLE besides Mann himself. I was, as the lovely English expression has it, “Gob-smacked”.

I knew it was bad, but interviewing two people now constitutes a “thorough investigation” of alleged serious scientific malfeasance? The investigators didn’t even understand that the famous “Mike’s Nature trick“was a clever way of hiding adverse data, a big scientific no-no. They didn’t interview anyone who actually understood the issues.

Quite simply, the AGW climate "science" is broken beyond repair...A Royal Commission is needed to uncover the fraud, the people involved, the money trail and prosecute where the laws have been broken.

Garpal Gumnut · 17 October 2010

There is a very basic element underlying all this climate Hysteria,

The Left lost the Anti nuclear debate in the 60's and 70's, and the economic debate and the Cold War in the 80's and 90's.

So they come up with this Weather waffle to give themselves a reason to exist.

Next they will be telling us that speeding in a motor car kills, rather than the lack of skill of the drivers in the motor cars.

gg

nulla nulla · 18 October 2010

Garpal Gumnut said:
Next they will be telling us that speeding in a motor car kills, rather than the lack of skill of the drivers in the motor cars.

gg

Not sure on this one, is it the shooting up of speed (while driving) that kills or the loss of control while under the influence of speed (while driving) that kills?

OzWaveGuy · 18 October 2010

We've seen a very small sample on how the ongoing climate corruption has materialised with.....re-written temp histories by IPCC "consensus" scientists, manually adjusted land temperature data to show warming trends when there is little or none, loose non-committal wording mixed in with AGW hype by the Royal Society and of course adjusted Ocean temps....that still show a cooling trend, but were manually arrested so as not to embarrass the climate establishment....our tax dollars hard at work:

Oceans Are Cooling

From Dr David Evans Climate Corruption Series - Part 3

Argo found that the oceans have been in a slight cooling trend since at least late-2004. Josh Willis of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, in charge of the Argo data, said in March 2008 on NPR: “There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant”.

The Argo data originally showed a strong cooling trend. Josh Willis was surprised at the results: “every body was telling me I was wrong”, because it didn’t agree with the climate models or satellite observations of net radiation flux. (Willis, who has written a paper with the father of alarmism James Hansen, had an “eye-opening” brush with Rush Limbaugh over the original data.) Willis decided to recalibrate the Argo data by omitting readings from some floats that seemed to be giving readings that were too cold.

(This is an example of a general problem with data in climate science: believers hold all the authority positions in climate science and own (manage) all the datasets. Datasets that contradict their theory have a habit of being recalibrated or otherwise adjusted for technical reasons, and the changes to the datasets always make them more supportive of the theory of man-made global warming. It has happened several times now””but by chance alone you would expect technical adjustments to make the data less supportive of any given position about half the time. Don’t be surprised if the Argo data for the last few years is “revised” at some stage to show warming instead of slight cooling.)

The Argo results shown here are the new data, after those omissions were made:

ghotib · 19 October 2010

OzWaveGuy, I'm sorry I haven't time to respond to your or anyone else's recent posts, but I would like to ask if you are aware that every one of the allegations you have mentioned has been rebutted, most of them many times. If you're not, would you consider looking at other sources to see why these allegations are often wrong in fact and even more wrong about the significance and meaning of the work they attack.

The Skeptical Science website provides explanations at different levels and links to the scientific literature so non-specialists can go to many of the original sources and see for ourselves what the scientists do and don't claim. That's why I linked to it in an earlier post, and here it is again: http://www.skepticalscience.com/

I don't see how arguments about fallible human nature or flawed human systems are any help in deciding what to do about global warming because (a) they apply to everyone and all systems and (b) they don't tell us anything about the climate. Many disparate chains of evidence now point clearly to serious risks from global warming caused by human activities. In my posts on this thread I've tried to provide links to sites that I've found helpful in understanding the evidence. I've put a lot of effort over several years into this, which is why I'm confident that Joanne Nova's and Anthony Watts' sites are not reliable guides: they are too often wrong about what scientists have said.

Cheers,

Ghoti

OzWaveGuy · 19 October 2010

OzWaveGuy said:
IPCC Changes History

As us humans can be a forgetful bunch sometimes and we can often overlook what our non-elected global prophets for the common good have provided - I thought I'd add a summary of the changing historical record provided in the IPCC AR reports since there is belief on this thread that temperature changes are "unnatural" and "illogical" and the IPCC must be believed.

AR1 and AR2 correctly estimated the global and European long term temperatures, but in AR3 (with the famous Hockey Stick) the temperatures are flat and explode upwards mid-twentieth century. Why the change?

The Medieval Warm period was a global phenomenon, so why flat line it out of the recent report?

Australia's own Prophets of Climate Change - The Department of Climate Change used the famous Hockey Stick lie to drive it's Climate PR campaign with the Australian Public. However, visiting the the Departments web site today - you can no longer find the chart of "unprecedented" warming (if anyone can find it, please post the URL)

Instead, you must go to the Internet Web Archive at http://web.archive.org to find Australia's missing hockey stick

If global warming is "unprecedented" and there is no conspiracy to implement a carbon tax/ETS and the IPCC are the climate experts, then why remove the "adapted" IPCC chart? As recent history has shown - the Hockey stick is a lie and an embarrassment to the climate establishment.

nukz · 19 October 2010

Anybody got a graph showing the revenue's from all green projects last year or Q1 this year so then we can put this whole topic to bed

Also the huge push to being green by George Soros and Rothschild, those two people do not give a **** about the environment. The Rothschild family is quite famous for funding wars that are not so green lol

OzWaveGuy · 19 October 2010

ghotib said:
OzWaveGuy, I'm sorry I haven't time to respond to your or anyone else's recent posts, but I would like to ask if you are aware that every one of the allegations you have mentioned has been rebutted, most of them many times.

Ease up on the kool-ade, open your eyes...

OzWaveGuy · 20 October 2010

What Hot Spot?

Posted on Joanne Nova's Blog was a little noticed article that is the centre of the AGW theory on global warming - the Atmospheric "Hotspot" that is created by CO2.

The only problem is - it doesn't exist....

"...warming will happen first in the cold blob of air 8-12 km above the tropics. It’s freezing cold up there, but it ought to be slightly less freezing cold thanks to greenhouse gases. All 20-odd climate models predict warming there first—it’s the fingerprint of greenhouse gas warming, as opposed to warming by some other cause, like solar magnetic effects, volcanic eruptions, solar irradiance, or ozone depletion etc etc."

Look at chart A below from model simulations...

"the greenhouse gas fingerprint is markedly different from the rest and dominates the overall predicted pattern in graph F."

Then look at the measured temperatures in the bottom chart...No Hot Spot

"The big problem for the believers of AGW is that years of radiosonde measurements can’t find any warming, as shown in part E of Figure 5.7 in section 5.5 on page 116 of the US CCSP 2006 report"

If you're feeling less scared about AGW...don't worry try this Penny Wong signals doom for iconic beaches that should get you back to where the Climate Establishment want you to be.

drsmith · 20 October 2010

The radiosonde graphic is interesting in that is shows a warming of the northern hemisphere troposphere relative to the southern hemisphere and also mid-upper tropospheric warming of the southern hemisphere.

This increase of atomospheric stability in the southern hemisphere relative to the northern hemisphere may, in part at least, offer a possible explanation for decreased rainfall over southern Australia.

It would be interesting to see the latest stats.

It's Snake Pliskin · 20 October 2010

I would like to know to what extent the heating of the Earth's core is having on our atmosphere.

I understand the role the sun plays re: sunspot activity etc.

OzWaveGuy · 22 October 2010

Climate Change is suspended

The greatest moral challenge of our lifetime was recently suspended by AusIndustry here

Re-tooling for Climate Change

Program Status: Suspended.

The Re-tooling for Climate Change program has been suspended until further notice, effective 24 September 2010. This does not affect existing grantees, whose grant contracts will be honoured. However, no new applications can be accepted for assessment at this time.

On 14 August 2010 the Deputy Prime Minister announced an election commitment to reduce the funding for the Re-tooling for Climate Change program, and it is possible that this will require the closure of the program.

Further information on the future of the program will be made available on this site when known.

Carbon Tax - not suspended

Get the impression the AGW alarmisim is sidelined? But the push for a Carbon Tax is now being made by stealth - Talks of climate change committee must be secret because of economic sensitivity.

Ms Gillard said all options were on the table as the committee moved towards “community consensus, on putting a price on carbon and looking at options for putting a price on carbon”.

There's that "consensus" word again (a publicly friendly definition for corruption)

In Summary
Were so concerned about climate change and we have so few years to act - we'll suspend programs that "appear" to make a difference and focus on a stealth strategy to tax you to death instead. We may possibly let you know when we actually know what real programs will be made available sometime in the future to reduce deadly CO2 emissions in Australian industry, but we really have no idea about the temperature impact of these programs but we know they will work but there remains the possibility that hitherto unknown aspects of the climate and climate change could emerge and lead to significant modifications in our understanding - Please trust us as we know best.

The AGW Alarmists on this thread can send their thoughts to the AusIndusty Hotline ( hotline@ausindustry.gov.au ) to force reinstatment of the "re-tooling for climate change" program before we run out of time.

Logique · 23 October 2010

Working beautifully OWG.

The '..why build dams, they'd never fill up..' crowd are pretty quiet lately too.

I recall 'Banker' Bob Carr once saying that desalinated water plants were producers of 'bottled electricity', mind you, this is the person once quoted as saying '..if you want vision, read Mein Kampf..'

So_Cynical · 23 October 2010

OzWaveGuy said:
Climate Change is suspended

The greatest moral challenge of our lifetime was recently suspended by AusIndustry

Program Status: Suspended.

Carbon Tax - not suspended

Oz i wish i could find a decent picture of a man grasping for straws...would be a very appropriate response to pretty much all your denial support posts.

Do you somehow expect the industry groups etc that were expecting funding via the CPRS to just keep on going without it? were the 400 redeployed public servants just meant to stay at there CPRS desks with no CPRS to administer?

Is it just a coincidence that the vast majority of deniers come form the right side of politics and its the right side of politics in generals that struggles with change....in Australia anyway (thinking of the French union rioters)

Get a grip man.

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Julia

In Memoriam

noco

noco

Julia

In Memoriam

OzWaveGuy

OzWaveGuy

OzWaveGuy

Garpal Gumnut

Ross Island Hotel

nulla nulla

Positive Expectancy

OzWaveGuy

Attachments

ghotib

THIMKER

OzWaveGuy

Attachments

nukz

888

OzWaveGuy

Attachments

OzWaveGuy

Attachments

drsmith

It's Snake Pliskin

OzWaveGuy

Logique

Investor

So_Cynical

The Contrarian Averager

Similar threads

Connect with us